Neal S Parikh1, Abhinaba Chatterjee2, Iván Díaz2, Ankur Pandya2, Alexander E Merkler2, Gino Gialdini2, Benjamin R Kummer2, Saad A Mir2, Michael P Lerario2, Matthew E Fink2, Babak B Navi2, Hooman Kamel2. 1. From the Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Unit, Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute, New York, NY (N.S.P., A.C., A.E.M., G.G., B.R.K., S.A.M., M.P.L., M.E.F., B.B.N., H.K.); Department of Neurology (N.S.P., A.E.M., S.A.M., M.E.F., B.B.N., H.K.) and Department of Healthcare Policy and Research (I.D.), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY; Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA (A.P.); Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY (B.R.K.); and Department of Neurology, NewYork-Presbyterian Queens, Flushing (M.P.L.). ctnu-correspondence@med.cornell.edu. 2. From the Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Unit, Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute, New York, NY (N.S.P., A.C., A.E.M., G.G., B.R.K., S.A.M., M.P.L., M.E.F., B.B.N., H.K.); Department of Neurology (N.S.P., A.E.M., S.A.M., M.E.F., B.B.N., H.K.) and Department of Healthcare Policy and Research (I.D.), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY; Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA (A.P.); Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY (B.R.K.); and Department of Neurology, NewYork-Presbyterian Queens, Flushing (M.P.L.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We sought to model the effects of interhospital transfer network design on endovascular therapy eligibility and clinical outcomes of stroke because of large-vessel occlusion for the residents of a large city. METHODS: We modeled 3 transfer network designs for New York City. In model A, patients were transferred from spoke hospitals to the closest hub hospitals with endovascular capabilities irrespective of hospital affiliation. In model B, which was considered the base case, patients were transferred to the closest affiliated hub hospitals. In model C, patients were transferred to the closest affiliated hospitals, and transfer times were adjusted to reflect full implementation of streamlined transfer protocols. Using Monte Carlo methods, we simulated the distributions of endovascular therapy eligibility and good functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2) in these models. RESULTS: In our models, 200 patients (interquartile range [IQR], 168-227) with a stroke amenable to endovascular therapy present to New York City spoke hospitals each year. Transferring patients to the closest hub hospital irrespective of affiliation (model A) resulted in 4 (IQR, 1-9) additional patients being eligible for endovascular therapy and an additional 1 (IQR, 0-2) patient achieving functional independence. Transferring patients only to affiliated hospitals while simulating full implementation of streamlined transfer protocols (model C) resulted in 17 (IQR, 3-41) additional patients being eligible for endovascular therapy and 3 (IQR, 1-8) additional patients achieving functional independence. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing acute stroke transfer networks resulted in clinically small changes in population-level stroke outcomes in a dense, urban area.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We sought to model the effects of interhospital transfer network design on endovascular therapy eligibility and clinical outcomes of stroke because of large-vessel occlusion for the residents of a large city. METHODS: We modeled 3 transfer network designs for New York City. In model A, patients were transferred from spoke hospitals to the closest hub hospitals with endovascular capabilities irrespective of hospital affiliation. In model B, which was considered the base case, patients were transferred to the closest affiliated hub hospitals. In model C, patients were transferred to the closest affiliated hospitals, and transfer times were adjusted to reflect full implementation of streamlined transfer protocols. Using Monte Carlo methods, we simulated the distributions of endovascular therapy eligibility and good functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2) in these models. RESULTS: In our models, 200 patients (interquartile range [IQR], 168-227) with a stroke amenable to endovascular therapy present to New York City spoke hospitals each year. Transferring patients to the closest hub hospital irrespective of affiliation (model A) resulted in 4 (IQR, 1-9) additional patients being eligible for endovascular therapy and an additional 1 (IQR, 0-2) patient achieving functional independence. Transferring patients only to affiliated hospitals while simulating full implementation of streamlined transfer protocols (model C) resulted in 17 (IQR, 3-41) additional patients being eligible for endovascular therapy and 3 (IQR, 1-8) additional patients achieving functional independence. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing acute stroke transfer networks resulted in clinically small changes in population-level stroke outcomes in a dense, urban area.
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Amy Y X Yu; Bijoy K Menon; Diederik W J Dippel; Werner Hacke; Stephen M Davis; Marc Fisher; Dileep R Yavagal; Francis Turjman; Jeffrey Ross; Shinichi Yoshimura; Zhongrong Miao; Rohit Bhatia; Mohammed Almekhlafi; Yuichi Murayama; Sung-Il Sohn; Jeffrey L Saver; Andrew M Demchuk; Michael D Hill Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Michael T Mullen; Charles C Branas; Scott E Kasner; Catherine Wolff; Justin C Williams; Karen C Albright; Brendan G Carr Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Matthew S W Milne; Jessalyn K Holodinsky; Michael D Hill; Anders Nygren; Chao Qiu; Mayank Goyal; Noreen Kamal Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Peter J Mitchell; Andrew M Demchuk; Antoni Dávalos; Charles B L M Majoie; Aad van der Lugt; Maria A de Miquel; Geoffrey A Donnan; Yvo B W E M Roos; Alain Bonafe; Reza Jahan; Hans-Christoph Diener; Lucie A van den Berg; Elad I Levy; Olvert A Berkhemer; Vitor M Pereira; Jeremy Rempel; Mònica Millán; Stephen M Davis; Daniel Roy; John Thornton; Luis San Román; Marc Ribó; Debbie Beumer; Bruce Stouch; Scott Brown; Bruce C V Campbell; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Jeffrey L Saver; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ross J Fleischman; Mark Lundquist; Jonathan Jui; Craig D Newgard; Craig Warden Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Amin Aghaebrahim; Christopher Streib; Srikant Rangaraju; Cynthia L Kenmuir; Dan-Victor Giurgiutiu; Anat Horev; Yumna Saeed; Clifton W Callaway; Francis X Guyette; Chris Martin-Gill; Charissa Pacella; Andrew F Ducruet; Brian T Jankowitz; Tudor G Jovin; Ashutosh P Jadhav Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Austin M Tang; Joshua Bakhsheshian; Li Ding; Casey A Jarvis; Edith Yuan; Ben Strickland; Steven L Giannotta; Arun Amar; Frank J Attenello; William J Mack Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Yaqian Xu; Neal S Parikh; Boshen Jiao; Joshua Z Willey; Amelia K Boehme; Mitchell S V Elkind Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Hooman Kamel; Neal S Parikh; Abhinaba Chatterjee; Luke K Kim; Jeffrey L Saver; Lee H Schwamm; Kori S Zachrison; Raul G Nogueira; Opeolu Adeoye; Iván Díaz; Andrew M Ryan; Ankur Pandya; Babak B Navi Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: Esmee Venema; Adrien E Groot; Hester F Lingsma; Wouter Hinsenveld; Kilian M Treurniet; Vicky Chalos; Sanne M Zinkstok; Maxim J H L Mulder; Inger R de Ridder; Henk A Marquering; Wouter J Schonewille; Marieke J H Wermer; Charles B L M Majoie; Yvo B W E M Roos; Diederik W J Dippel; Jonathan M Coutinho; Bob Roozenbeek Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Lars-Peder Pallesen; Simon Winzer; Kristian Barlinn; Alexandra Prakapenia; Timo Siepmann; Cosima Gruener; Johannes Gerber; Kevin Haedrich; Jennifer Linn; Jessica Barlinn; Volker Puetz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 4.379